D&D General Who is this made for (Not Beginners) - the New D&D Starter Set

[Micah Sweet]

I did an apples to apples comparison (price and contents) of the onboarding boxed sets for new players available at five points in time (1981, 1983, 1991, 2014, now) vs the PH available at the same time.

I get the distinction you're trying to draw, but it seemed like you were making an argument that such a boxed starter (with all its contents directly supporting its function, which is different than that of a PH) is NEVER worth the same price as a PH. And I'm pointing out that the producers of D&D have virtually always priced them to match, including during the first fad/boom.

You can object to starter boxes on any grounds you like, but arguing that this one in particular is poor value for money against a PH seems dubious at best, given the contents and their respective use-cases.

The only one I bought that for a D&D-type game that also had an available PH equivalent was the 2014 box, which was a lot cheaper and therefore worth getting for me. It is poor value to price a starter set equal to a PH for me. It is a preference. You can disagree, but you can't tell me I'm objectively wrong, and casting dispersions on my opinion because you don't agree with it seems rather unfair IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My feelings about that matter is that you are cherry picking what should be compared with each other and what not.

It is ok to make a decision. I won't buy it either in English. But I will probably get it in German, as it seems a nice entry product for my kid.

I am more torn about the Stranger things starter set as I have the feeling that chances for it to be translated are far lower (the last one was not). I might try out the digital + print package.

If they are for the same game they can be fairly compared. If they aren't IMO they can't be. How is that cherry picking?

Like seriously, please explain how my subjective opinion here is somehow wrong?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

the 2014 box, which was a lot cheaper and therefore worth getting for me

But that was because it contained a good adventure at a bargain basement price.

It had nothing to do with its actual purpose.

 

[dave2008]

If you have a specific playstyle featured in your starter set, you are pushing that style for new players. That's just what's happening IMO. So I have to wonder, what benefit is gained (by players, GMs, WotC, whatever) by pushing this particular playstyle at new players?

It would be overwhelming to newbie have to learn all playstyles so you present one generic one.

 

[dave2008]

No, but if I'm right about their intentions for D&D it is an indicator of the hobby being shifted, and that certainly affects me if I ever expect to play with people I'm not playing with now.

Fortunately you're wrong about their intentions for D&D (with regard to this product) so no worries then!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is a great example of the things I mean when I say it's "not perfect". Another is the spell cards - they have a nice AoE design, but the Ability Score affected by it is often lost in the text.

And there is the minor colour blindness issue. But these are the sort of constructive feedback Justice will be looking for. Some might even be correctable in (as seems likely) a second print run next year.

 

[dave2008]

So you became a GM to spite the materials on which you learned?

Yes, I agree with @Paul Farquhar here. Not that adventure specifically by AD&D and 1e rules and 2e lore specifically. My feeling that the rules and lore were poorly done and I could do better had a huge impact on my 34 pages of AD&D/ BECMI era houserules and creation of my own campaign world. I am not suggesting that is what a company should try to do, but it made me love D&D!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If they are for the same game they can be fairly compared. If they aren't IMO they can't be. How is that cherry picking?

Like seriously, please explain how my subjective opinion here is somehow wrong?

Someone calculated the prices of old starter sets... And the new one compares fairly well...

So while it might not be for you, it is not overpriced.

Maybe I misread your statement.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes, I agree with @Paul Farquhar here. Not that adventure specifically by AD&D and 1e rules and 2e lore specifically. My feeling that the rules and lore were poorly done and I could do better had a huge impact on my 34 pages of AD&D/ BECMI era houserules and creation of my own campaign world. I am not suggesting that is what a company should try to do, but it made me love D&D!

Certainly I had that response to the World of Greyhawk as well, and built my own setting.

These days there are much better settings, and I’m not so arrogant!

I thought the Basic set rules were too simplistic, but I was happy enough with AD&D not to tinker much with the rules.

 

[Mannahnin]

Someone calculated the prices of old starter sets... And the new one compares fairly well...

So while it might not be for you, it is not overpriced.

Maybe I misread your statement.

Value is subjective. $1 is too much for me to pay for a product I have zero interest in or use for, unless maybe I can quickly and easily resell it for more.

What's objective is that this is priced at the same price point, relative to a contemporaneous PH, as almost every D&D starter/intro box which has existed, going all the way back to 1974 (well, 1978 when the first PH was released).